Once something private is published, no court on earth can remove it from the public mind. That is why, in contrast to libel (where a court can restore a person's reputation), the only effective remedy is to prevent publication. But the court can only do this if the victim knows and alerts a judge. This is why prior notification is essential.

Today's report from the culture select committee recognises this but rejects legislation. Instead, it puts forward two measures. First, it says prior notification should be part of the code of a new body to replace the current Press Complaints Commission. Second, it suggests a failure to notify should increase the damages if the victim is successful at trial.

Unfortunately neither of these two well-meaning measures will help.

The tabloids know very well that if they can keep their intention to publish secret and thus stop the victim seeking an injunction, he is most unlikely to go to trial. This is because, unlike an application for an injunction, a full privacy trial is eye-wateringly expensive.

My case against the News of the World lasted just few days – nevertheless, the total costs were over £1m. So not only do would-be litigants face the prospect of everything they wish to keep private being aired again in detail in open court – they also have to risk a huge sum of money. Their lawyers are bound to advise them not to continue. So no one in their right mind goes to trial once the matter is public.

The remote possibility of increased damages for failure to notify will not change that. The proposed new rule would be entirely academic. And one would have to very naive to imagine that when the dust settles we will have a voluntary press regulator capable of deterring the worst of the tabloids when they have a really sensational breach of privacy on their hands.

As the law stands, tabloid editors can quite deliberately stop an individual going to court by keeping their intention to publish secret. They have a particularly strong incentive to this when they know they are breaking the law and an injunction would be granted if the victim knew. Once they get the story out, they know they won't be called to account. It follows that prior notification has to be a legal requirement if the Human Rights Act is to be enforced.

Even though I won my case, the matter should never have become public, and the gap in the law that allows a tabloid editor to prevent you going to court to get an injunction needs to be closed. I am now taking a case against the government to the European court of human rights to achieve this. Were I to win, the government would be under intense pressure to change the law regardless of the select committee's own recommendations.